Diablo 3 - News Roundup

Pardo cited what Blizzard did with real-time strategy design from StarCraft to Warcraft 3. "A lot of people in that time period were doing RTS missions where you just build up your base, slug it out against another base, do that 30 times and you're done with the campaign. With War 3 we tried to come up with interesting scenarios and I think that's the same thing with Diablo III. You guys may have been used to Diablo and Diablo II being really just kind of a point and click game…fun but not really immersive."
Incorporating more involved questing and role-playing elements is something Blizzard is focusing on with Diablo III, but also make the gameplay more dynamic. "We had bosses in Diablo II but, again, they weren't really involved. We really want to try to implement bosses that are much more epic, there's much more gameplay to actually defeating them. We're taking cues from games like Zelda, God of War, games like that, bring that to the action-RPG genre. We want to have side quests and scenarios that are much more involved…like defend the town from attack or something like that."

The Witch Doctor will have control over disease, can summon pets, and can even control the minds of his or her enemies. We saw a few examples of these different approaches in the game demo: Locust Swarm is a spell that summons a nasty horde of flying locusts that can overwhelm an opponent. Better yet, the locusts will automatically spawn to attack additional enemies in the area. We saw one pet in use too; the mongrel. This pet can attack enemies and can be buffed with other Witch Doctor spells; during the demo, the player cast Locust Swarm on his mongrel, giving the pet an attack bonus. We also briefly saw the Horrify spell, which causes enemies to temporarily flee in terror. By far his coolest ability was the Wall of Zombie which was truly terrifying. If you've seen a wall of fire or ice in a game before, you probably have a pretty good idea of what this skill is all about.

And now we got D3. It looks the same as D2 and D1. Two orbs. Mouse clicking. Iconic classes. It looks gorgeous as well. Using the same isometric (sic) perspective. And from what I can see, people are lapping it up. People are loving it, me included. Why? Well I guess it's reassuring to see a team that is made up of several different members from D2's team (even though it's still Blizzard) behind the steering wheel of this game, and how they managed to make the game be like what Diablo III SHOULD be like, in the hearts of fans and gamers in general.

All of this disturbs me. Why? Because I'm a fan of another franchise. One where action takes a sidestep into turn-based chaos, and dialog, options, different routes, take the center stage. A game whose setting was, and still is, unique.

Nice article on that blog and I agree with Solivagant. Diablo III is going to be great game because it's old good Diablo.

Fallout 3, copy of oblivion but with guns, is going another way. It have nothing (except the setting and world) from it's prequels. Fallout fans put much criticism over Bethesda for that, but this company didn't even tried to fix any it's fails - Beth just banned Fallout fans on forum, because they were criticizing almighty Bethesda! It's stupid and miserable. I won't buy anymore any Beth game, not only because their new games sucks, but because they have their community as "money making idiots", not as fans.

*sigh* yet more 'I don't think I'm going to like it so it must inherently suck' type comments..

The blog identifies that both sequels will are being looked forward to by lots of people, but just becuase the author happens to agree with lots of people only for D3 he's complaining about Fallout 3.

And I completely disagree with the above comment about the Bethsoft community - I've been a member of that community since Daggerfall (when it was newsgroup based). I'm also a fan of the old fallout games. If I'm looking forward to F3 (which I am), what does that make me?

Originally Posted by kalniel
The blog identifies that both sequels will are being looked forward to by lots of people, but just becuase the author happens to agree with lots of people only for D3 he's complaining about Fallout 3.

That's…not really the point at all.

It's not about personal tastes, it's about who you turn to, what attitude you take towards a sequel. Blizzard sticks to the core formula of Diablo even though most of the original team is gone. Bethesda is a self-proclaimed "we change with every sequel" which apparently means adapting Fallout 3 to TES standards (I don't see how that is bringing change, really, but still).

They're different attitudes, and the writer argues that the Blizzard attitude is the right one for making sequels. That has nothing to do with personal preferences in what kind of games you like to play, and it has even less to do with how many people look forward to the game (rather, it has to do with how many people look forward to it as a sequel, which is rather different for Fallout 3 than it is for Diablo 3), it's a matter of how you approach sequels period.

Originally Posted by kalniel
And I completely disagree with the above comment about the Bethsoft community - I've been a member of that community since Daggerfall (when it was newsgroup based). I'm also a fan of the old fallout games. If I'm looking forward to F3 (which I am), what does that make me?

I don't see what that has to do with anything Konjad sad about the BGSF community. But why do you care so much what label would be put on you?

Originally Posted by kalniel
I'm also a fan of the old fallout games. If I'm looking forward to F3 (which I am), what does that make me?

A rarity!

Not really - I think most of us are looking forward to Fallout 3, heck I preordered it! But we also look at the multiplicity of failings of Oblivion as a RPG, juxtapose those with the strengths of the Fallout games, and see much to be concerned about in terms of getting a game that will deliver a classic yet updated experience (as opposed to Oblivion with guns)

Well, regarding the comparison to FO, I believe you need to realize that Blizzard is the only gaming company in the world that can get away with making Diablo 3 (and SC2 for that matter) an almost exact carbon copy of the previous game. And I mean "get away" in terms of both, public reception and commercial success.

Any other game developer would be accused of "milking" or of a "bold move". The total lack of innovation, the retro design and the not state of the art graphics would be major points of criticism in the communities and in the gaming press if this were not Blizzard and if this were not D3 then the game would be destined to fail at retail.

Not so with Blizzard. It's really once again the Blizzard phenomenon. They happen to have the luxury to live in a world of their own. No other developer (including Bethesda) comes even close to that status. Bethesda would not get away with a Fallout 3 in the tradition of the original Fallouts. They would please a couple thousand old school fans but otherwise the game would turn into a complete commercial failure.

Originally Posted by Brother None
I don't see what that has to do with anything Konjad sad about the BGSF community. But why do you care so much what label would be put on you?

I thought he was implying that Bethsoft thought of it's community as 'money making idiots' rather than fans. I disagree.

As for why do I care? Well I don't on a personal level, I was just curious as to whether the existance of a fan of both Fallout games and Elderscrolls games who was still looking forward to F3 would change his view that Bethsoft didn't care about fans.

Maybe he would only label me as a 'money making idiot' though, which he would be free to do of course, but if that's the case I'd like to at least have a fair opportunity to change his mind

All that I have seen sofar that has been changed between Fallout 3 and the first 2 are that is isn't isometric and that they are going with a real time w/ pause like system. Does those 2 things make Fallout a "Fallout" game? If it did then the series would be extremly shallow; (which it is not) so that means that there must be much more to "Fallout" then that.

With that in mind wait till the game comes out before writing it off and bashing it since noone knows what the game is going to be like and the best way to find out is by playing it. (or if you want to wait till another Fallout fan plays it and says if it is a "Fallout" game or not.

Never bash a company for making the game they want to make just because you don't like it. They may like that game and the next game they make might have a vision more inline with your tastes.

kalniel, I think you didn't get my point I understand you like TES and Fallout's and you are a fan of both series. Why I said Beth think about it's fans as "money making idiots" is because some events on their official forum. Too bad it was too long ago and I do not have links anymore to posts on some forums, where people were complaining they were banned because they criticized oblivion (later also complain about Fallout 3). So I don't have any evidence anymore, you just have to believe me (or not) I do not consider company that "silence" people who criticize their new game as someone who thinks about community as their fans (most of banned users were Morrowind fans).

Originally Posted by Moriendor
Well, regarding the comparison to FO, I believe you need to realize that Blizzard is the only gaming company in the world that can get away with making Diablo 3 (and SC2 for that matter) an almost exact carbon copy of the previous game. And I mean "get away" in terms of both, public reception and commercial success.

The commercial success factor might be the biggest problem. For the most part it's a bit weird, tho', you create your own discourse by creating your own success, so to speak. The media is fairly malleable, and public reaction is too (not so much when it comes down the sales numbers, tho'). Many of the most prominent RPG pundits would probably agree the biggest problem is not that Fallout 3 as a bird's eye view RT/TB game wouldn't work, it's more that Bethesda itself has always carried out this strong push for "immersion" and been a factor in the whole push of RPGs towards RT/FP adventure games, and not only are they not about to change, but it's what people have come to expect from them.

So yes, expectancies are a part of it. But it's not as rigid as you're displaying it. The whole discourse looks so rigid primarily because the companies push for the media to talk like this in the first place.

Originally Posted by guenthar
All that I have seen sofar that has been changed between Fallout 3 and the first 2 are that is isn't isometric and that they are going with a real time w/ pause like system. Does those 2 things make Fallout a "Fallout" game? If it did then the series would be extremly shallow; (which it is not) so that means that there must be much more to "Fallout" then that.

Well, two things:

1. TB (and to some factor bird's eye view) simply are a part of Fallout's overall design philosophy: pen and paper emulation. You can abandon it without abandoning the pen and paper emulation otherwise, but if you're sticking to pen and paper emulation overall, it's simply illogical to abandon it.

2. That's far from the only thing they've changed, there are a lot of smaller and bigger things, such as the identity/behaviour of the Brotherhood of Steel, the look of the super mutants, the details of SPECIAL and the way it interacts with the game (including gimping the characteristics, taking out traits whole, removing some skills, making perks into a 1-per-level thing and making it all much less significant for combat) and a stack of tinier details, such as the look of Mr Handy or the fact that cars explode now.

Originally Posted by guenthar
Never bash a company for making the game they want to make just because you don't like it. They may like that game and the next game they make might have a vision more inline with your tastes.

I've never bashed a company for making games I don't like. When a company buys someone else's IP and then turns it into the type of game they like, some questions do pop up, tho', such as "why?"

I don't really understand how people got banned for criticising Oblivion and Fallout 3 since there are people on the forums that criticize Oblivion and Fallout 3 right now. If they got banned for that then many more people would have been banned a long time ago.

I don't really do pen and paper gaming (I have tried to get into it though) but in order to have a structured game there is no choice but have a TB system in p&p rpgs. In a crpg you can have that kind of structure but remove the TB requirement.

When it comes to the changes Bethesda has made I guess I missed some of interviews that said that they are gimping the SPECIAL system. The only thing that I knew was confirmed was that they were not going to have the very low intelligence gameplay like the previous games. In the original games you couldn't shoot the cars so you wouldn't know if they would explode. With the BOS they have went rogue and decided to do there own thing so it is understandable that they would be different.

PS. If you look at the past of both Interplay and Bethesda you would notice that they are simular. They both made game series that people liked then made a mediocre (with bethesda it was 2) game then went and put out a game that people didn't like.

PPS. I wasn't talking to you (I started typing that before you posted) but I was talking to everyone who bashes Oblivion. For me I don't bash anyone but I will say that I don't like a game or a feature. I don't like a lot of things about Oblivion so I use a bunch of mods to make it into a game I like much better.

Originally Posted by Moriendor
Well, regarding the comparison to FO, I believe you need to realize that Blizzard is the only gaming company in the world that can get away with making Diablo 3 (and SC2 for that matter) an almost exact carbon copy of the previous game. And I mean "get away" in terms of both, public reception and commercial success.

Any other game developer would be accused of "milking" or of a "bold move". The total lack of innovation, the retro design and the not state of the art graphics would be major points of criticism in the communities and in the gaming press if this were not Blizzard and if this were not D3 then the game would be destined to fail at retail.

Not so with Blizzard. It's really once again the Blizzard phenomenon. They happen to have the luxury to live in a world of their own. No other developer (including Bethesda) comes even close to that status. Bethesda would not get away with a Fallout 3 in the tradition of the original Fallouts. They would please a couple thousand old school fans but otherwise the game would turn into a complete commercial failure.

I think that this is actually one of the best remarks this far, and I would personally even place it on the top page, because it has so much truth in it.

ANY other game would get a -10 points in reviws for THAT kind of grapjhics, but Blizzard WILL get a 10+ I bet ! And that because of the "sticking to its origins" type of reactions !

And that even from thise graphics-centric reviewers !

Or, in other words : NO reviewing site or gaming magazine won't EVER say : Don't buy this graphics crap because the graphics are utterly outdated !

I call this schizophrenia. Or comparing with two measures.

— “ Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.“ (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

Originally Posted by guenthar
I don't really understand how people got banned for criticising Oblivion and Fallout 3 since there are people on the forums that criticize Oblivion and Fallout 3 right now. If they got banned for that then many more people would have been banned a long time ago.

Maybe it changed lately? I do not know, I don't read Beth forum for awhile now. It doesn't change my opinion much, anyway. We'll see in future, when FO3 is released, how it is with both Fallout and community.

Originally Posted by Brother None
It's not about personal tastes, it's about who you turn to, what attitude you take towards a sequel. Blizzard sticks to the core formula of Diablo even though most of the original team is gone. Bethesda is a self-proclaimed "we change with every sequel" which apparently means adapting Fallout 3 to TES standards (I don't see how that is bringing change, really, but still).

Is the comparison fair for bethesda? The original fallout2 sold only few hundred thousand compared to diablo2's massive 4 million. According to wikipedia diablo2 is the most popular pc "rpg" known to man - while fallout2 is just yet another niche that isnt included in the (top) saleslists even.

Its all about money imho - if fallout2 had sold million(s) Im sure wed see a true sequel for it too (and if diablo2 had sold only few hundred thousand it might have seen the same fate as fallout3).

— “I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” - Maya Angelou
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke

Originally Posted by Konjad
kalniel, I think you didn't get my point I understand you like TES and Fallout's and you are a fan of both series. Why I said Beth think about it's fans as "money making idiots" is because some events on their official forum. Too bad it was too long ago and I do not have links anymore to posts on some forums, where people were complaining they were banned because they criticized oblivion (later also complain about Fallout 3). So I don't have any evidence anymore, you just have to believe me (or not) I do not consider company that "silence" people who criticize their new game as someone who thinks about community as their fans (most of banned users were Morrowind fans).

There were plenty of Daggerfall fans banned when Morrowind came out, as it was such a change from the series - out of them Morrowind is probably my least favourite game still. Likewise when Oblivion came out there were plenty of Morrowind fans banned. It wasn't the fact that in their opinion Oblivion was a worse game than Morrowind that they were banned for, that view was always allowed to be expressed and still is, it was the way they expressed their displeasure in such a childish, rude, fashion that it disrupted those of us who were trying to have a meaningful dialogue about the situation.

Also insulting a company is never a good way to put across your views on their own forum

Originally Posted by Brother None
Well, two things:

1. TB (and to some factor bird's eye view) simply are a part of Fallout's overall design philosophy: pen and paper emulation. You can abandon it without abandoning the pen and paper emulation otherwise, but if you're sticking to pen and paper emulation overall, it's simply illogical to abandon it.

Do you think the same with the Eye of the Beholder series then? I always thought 1&2 were rather good games. The fact that number 3 wasn't so good was more to do with Westwood splitting and making the excellent Lands of Lore instead.

Actually I prefered EotB to the Pools of Radience series of games even.

I've never bashed a company for making games I don't like. When a company buys someone else's IP and then turns it into the type of game they like, some questions do pop up, tho', such as "why?"

Only Bethsoft can answer that - I believe the answer is probably that to them they aren't changing the fallout type of game and that they have a vision of using the IP in a way they think will work. Why would they buy it otherwise? They aren't going to gain enough sales from a residual fallout fanbase to be worth the price of the license.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
I think that this is actually one of the best remarks this far, and I would personally even place it on the top page, because it has so much truth in it.

Fair? Bethesda practically begs for it themselves by refusing to acknowledge the purchase of Fallout 3 as an economic decision - instead pretending it was because the developers love the franchise so much - and barely talking about the economic incentives for their changes.

I don't think "fair" is the right question. Comparing Diablo 3 to Fallout 3 is not ideal, and it fits as much as any other of the comparisons, be it GTA III, X-Com:Enforcer or Metroid Prime. But it's a comparison, and it works to some level. Yes you have to recognize the differences in approach and the motives behind it, but more importantly you should also recognize overlapping the fact that these are different sequels - that we're also looking at two different companies with different approaches.

Blizzard likes to stick close to fans and present their games as high quality and of a close-knit design. Bethesda prefers to abandon fans where necessary and lean on media to sell their game over word-of-mouth. Both companies have success with their relative approach to some level, but you have to realise none of this is anything Bethesda was forced to do - and a lot of the factors in their approach is something they want to do and not something market forces push them into. No one was holding a gun to their head to make Oblivion so deviant from Morrowind, and certainly no one was asking of them to purchase Fallout and adapt the game to their mould.

Originally Posted by Brother None
Blizzard likes to stick close to fans and present their games as high quality and of a close-knit design. Bethesda prefers to abandon fans where necessary and lean on media to sell their game over word-of-mouth.

See I completely disagree with that statement. Oblivion shows that Bethsoft *did* listen to their fans criticism of Morrowind. Morrowind was such a departure from the series and a huge number of us wanted them to get back to something more like Daggerfall, which in my, and many other fans opinion, they did.

Originally Posted by kalniel
Oblivion shows that Bethsoft *did* listen to their fans criticism of Morrowind. Morrowind was such a departure from the series and a huge number of us wanted them to get back to something more like Daggerfall, which in my, and many other fans opinion, they did.

What you're saying here is that Oblivion is a return to Daggerfall (I think many people would disagree with that, but I'm not TES expert myself so I'll leave it). To do that, they would abandon the fans of Morrowind specifically. Which is what I said they did.

Originally Posted by Brother None
What you're saying here is that Oblivion is a return to Daggerfall (I think many people would disagree with that, but I'm not TES expert myself so I'll leave it). To do that, they would abandon the fans of Morrowind specifically. Which is what I said they did.

Are you suggesting that unless a game is a near carbon copy then the company is abandoning its fans?

I think we're back to damned if you do, damned if you don't. Oblivion kept some things from Morrowind, like the organisation of assets, programming/test management to reduce bugs, nice toolset, plug in manangment etc. while changing the things that the Daggerfall fans had complained about, like bleak landscapes, non-leveled creatures/rewards, less high fantasy setting, lack of fast travel. Clearly they attempted to take onboard criticism and make the best game possible.

Remember that on forums complaints will always outnumber complements, and you tend not to hear 'oh you actually did x,y,z features really well, I hope you keep them in future games'. As such I'm sure Bethsoft didn't set out to alienate people who were new to the series and had only experienced Morrowind, just that those people didn't always know, or didn't vocalise, about a particular feature they liked until after it had gone.

Originally Posted by kalniel
Are you suggesting that unless a game is a near carbon copy then the company is abandoning its fans?

Where exactly did I suggest that?

I'm suggesting that when my two eyes see a rather disproportionately large amount of fans feeling alienated, then the company probably alienated them somehow. This happened between Daggerfall and Morrowind, and it happened between Morrowind and Oblivion, and it happened between Fallout 2 and Fallout 3. Whether or not it happens between Oblivion and Fallout 3 remains to be seen.

I'm not really doing any numerical study to back that up, tho', so it's just an impression.

EDIT: also, it occurs to me that this is a Diablo 3 newsthread, and derailing it so far into a Bethesda discussion might be a bit silly.